Why 'don’t break law' argument a foolish one

THE EDITOR: There is a growing chorus of voices defending the doubling of traffic fines by repeating a simple refrain: “If you don’t break the law, you won’t be fined.” On the surface, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it is a deeply flawed and intellectually lazy argument.

The reality is that motorists break road laws unknowingly and unintentionally every day. Not because they are reckless, but because road use is complex, imperfect, and often poorly managed. Consider some common examples:

• Drivers enter reduced speed zones without noticing a sign that is obscured, faded, or suddenly placed.

• Drivers unfamiliar with an area unintentionally violate one-way restrictions, bus lanes, or school zones that are poorly marked or inconsistently enforced.

• Drivers are penalised for technical offences such as an expired inspection sticker, an insurance lapse they were unaware of, or a registration issue caused by administrative delays.

• In many cases, road markings are unclear or worn away entirely, turning compliance into guesswork. Vehicle issues – like a brake light or headlamp failing without warning – can also result in fines, even when the driver had no reasonable way of knowing.

Yet, despite these realities, some argue that TT is a “lawless dump” and that harsher fines are the solution. This view ignores the difference between wilful lawlessness and honest human error. Treating both the same does not promote justice; it promotes resentment.

This is why a demerit points system makes more sense. It is not perfect, but it attempts to balance the equation. It targets patterns of dangerous behaviour rather than punishing single, sometimes unavoidable mistakes. It allows for accountability without turning traffic enforcement into a blunt revenue-collection exercise that disproportionately affects working-class citizens.

A fair traffic system should aim to improve safety, not simply increase penalties.

SIMON WRIGHT

Chaguanas